Wednesday, February 9, 2011 And Preterist Hypocrisy

The 3rd in a series of podcasts with Hyper/Full Preterist 'Rivers of Eden' often, reluctantly considered the most consistent advocate of the Hyper/Full Preterist view. Rivers of Eden (ROE), discusses how the hyperpreterist movement, and especially has hypocritically taken actions to silence his input into the community.

Listen to this podcast as it touches on the current state within the 'preterist movement'.

LISTEN to the Podcast

  • Right click this link and download to your computer or mp3 device: link
  • Left click this link to listen now on your computer's audio device: link
  • Listen via the podcast page here at TKC (best for slow connections)
  • Listen using the player below

River's/ROE welcomes continued interaction.
Contact "Rivers of Eden" via email:


Other Podcasts in this series
  1. The Consistent Conclusions of Full/Hyperpreterism
  2. The Martin Luther of Hyperpreterism: Rivers Responds

Mike Loomis quotes:
"Over the last number of months I personally came very close to embracing this position. I didn’t just flirt with it…I quite literally put it on to see if it would fit. I was even beginning to tell people that I was sure it was right...Seriously…I was ready to call myself a Hyper-Preteristi. Everything fit in the box very well. No more questions unanswered. But then the questions began to arise as I started considering the implications of this position. And then there is the question of what the universal Church has been doing for the last 2000 years. Have we been worshiping a god that has no interest outside the tribes of Israel?...If anyone wants to pursue HP that is fine. But it scared the hell out of me....If it’s true…No matter how much good has come from 2000 years of Church history…It’s all been based on a false premise. ROE is a good friend. I’ve learned a lot from him. However…I think he has gone too far." -- source

"What he is suggesting might not be an easy pill to swallow and it might not even be the right one…But that doesn’t change the fact that he has been and continues to allow the Word to direct him wherever the truth might lead.

And the one thing I appreciate the most about him is that his posts are supported solely by scripture. No tradition…No creeds…Just the scriptures interpreting themselves and utilizing the original languages in support of his views...I want to follow the Truth wherever it may lead me. I want to test all things. Whether the journey is comfortable or not…The Truth has nothing to fear from honest investigation." -- source


Roderick_E said...

After this podcast aired, Mike Loomis of put out another message where he not only fails to make any mention of the 3 podcasts here, he tries to imply that the reason he is trying to silence ROE is because ROE is a non-Trinitarian. Of course ROE is a non-Trinitarian as ALL "full/hyperprets" should logically be. I mean, look again at the official statement signed by many of the "leaders" of the hyperpreterist movement.

"3. Scholars across a broad spectrum are in general agreement that this is exactly how every NT writer and the early Church understood Jesus’ words. If they were wrong on something this important, how can we trust them to have conveyed other aspects of the faith accurately, such as the requirements for salvation?" -- source 9.5 Theses

Hyperpreterism's premise is that somehow 2000 years of Christianity has been "wrong on something this important" (ie eschatology) and therefore hyperpreterists can't "trust" historic Christianity's doctrines, including what is considered "requirements for salvation". Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity SHOULD be the very first thing that a hyperpret questions, since it is here that factions of Christianity had the first and biggest falling out. How can these hyperprets "trust" that historic Christianity has "conveyed" this aspect of the faith accurately?

ROE is simply being CONSISTENT (a mantra within hyperpreterism).

But Loomis is even MORE hypocritical than we first thought, since claiming the reason for silencing ROE was due to his anti-Trinitarianism when Loomis had been letting Marty Angelo, a "futurist" AND an anti-trinitarian broadcast on At least ROE had some kinship with Loomis' "preterism".

Loomis is KNOWN even among his fellow hyperprets as being a compromiser and "man-pleaser". Even the show "The Antithesis Hour" has fallen by the wayside because there was not "anti" (opposition) going on between Loomis and his co-host. Loomis is a fraud. He ALREADY told us why he recoiled at ROEs conclusions -- because it "scared the hell out of him". Loomis simply wasn't man enough to embrace the logical conclusions of hyperpreterism. Even former hyperpret leader Sam Frost has finally admitted that "Full Preterism is incompatible with Christianity" (source). When will Loomis start being honest with himself and his listeners?

Roderick_E said...

Mike Loomis of CONTINUES to lie about what Hyper-preterism is. Loomis is trying to claim that "Rivers of Eden" is the real "Hyper-preterist"; HOWEVER when Keith Mathison, Kenneth Gentry, Doug Wilson and the others wrote their book against hyper-preterism they had in mind the kind of "preterism" advocated by Loomis, by Don Preston, by Ed Stevens, by Sam Frost and others.

It is DISHONEST for Loomis to continue to try to salvage his heresy by repackaging it. Even Frost, who has recanted hyper-preterism says:
"Full Preterism is incompatible with Christianity" -- source

Loomis MUST lie. He has invest $10,000 into his little podcast network venture and isn't making any sustaining financial returns. He must do whatever it takes to keep the contributers he has and try to attract more; even if that means LYING about what has historically been considered "Hyper-preterism" -- shameless.

Roderick_E said...

After pointing out Mike Loomis hypocrisy, even those who would consider me their "enemy" are now pointing out Loomis' hypocrisy:

Loomis trying to make ROE out to be the real heretic is like a Mormon saying a JW is a heretic.